This blog consists of comments from my real blog, http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/, which I don't want to publish there.
Plus some other stuff convenient to place here.
And its becoming a convenient place for me to dump my comments on other blogs so I can find them again.

<b>Fact 3:</b> The IPCC claims that water vapor does nearly all of "33 degrees of warming" of Earth's surface. It must do most of it because it dominates CO2 in concentration and also in the number of frequency bands in which it absorbs and radiates. But in fact water vapor lowers the "lapse rate" so that the temperature profile rotates downwards at the surface end, making the surface cooler. (In fact, as per my <a href="http://www.climate-change-theory.com/Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf" rel="nofollow">paper</a>, there is no 33 degrees of warming being done by any back radiation because it is gravity which props up the surface end of the temperature profile.)

When you have answered the question, work out how much hotter the IPCC conjecture implies a region with 4% water vapor would be than a similar region with 1% water vapor at a similar altitude and latitude. Then look up the study in the Appendix of my <a href="http://www.climate-change-theory.com/Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf" rel="nofollow">paper</a> and see what real world data tells us about how water vapor cools rather than warms. And if you don't believe my study, then spend half a day doing your own.

Finally, note that it is quite clear in the energy diagram <a href="http://climate-change-theory.com/PSI.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and the text I wrote beneath it that they have certainly added 324W/m^2 of back radiation to 168W/m^2 of solar radiation in order to use this in Stefan Boltzmann calculations to determine the temperature of the surface. Obviously they worked out by difference what the back radiation figure had to be and made it 66% greater than the 195W/m^2 of upward radiation from the atmosphere to space. They need not have bothered, because their whole paradigm is wrong, because they ignored the fact that the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that gravity forms the temperature and density gradients - which represent the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

Why would anyone credit what "[you] think" on the subject of contemporary social mores among humans when your concept of etiquette begins with calling me "Keyes"? ROFL

As for your suggestion that our gracious host is such an insecure mediocrity that he'd actually insist, with a straight face, in 2015, that everyone who visits his <i>blog</i> validate his supposed completion of a PhD on an unknown subject—though he doesn't even see fit to mention this anywhere else on the page!—well, what can I say, Steve? <i><b>Nobody</i></b> could be as pompous as that. And (a posteriori) they're NOT, are they? Look around. <i><b>Nobody on this page</i></b> typed "Dr. Connolley" until you did, Steve. Not even our host. Who signs his blog 'William Connolley.'

"As Cook wrote on Skeptical Science, “We’re basically going with [a definition of] AGW = “humans are causing global warming” Eg [sic] – no specific quantification.” This is very different from what the IPCC says–that humans have caused 90% of global warming."

The highest level of endorsement–“Endorsement level 1, Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%.(human actions causing 50% or more warming)” was assigned by the raters to a grand total of 65 out of the 12,000 papers evaluated. This certainly is a weak finding. Even combined with level 2’s 934 papers it amounts to less than 10%.